undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmindwok9mo ago0 comments

This is just semantics. What's the difference between a "human interpretation of a good program" and a "good program" when we (humans) are the ones using it? If the model can write code that passes tests, and meets my requirements, then it's a good programmer. I would expect nothing more or less out of a human programmer.

0 comments

otabdeveloper49mo ago

> What's the difference between a "human interpretation of a good program" and a "good program" when we (humans) are the ones using it?

Correctness.

> and meets my requirements

It can't do that. "My requirements" wasn't part of the training set.

mindwokOP9mo ago

"Correctness" in what sense? It sounds like it's being expanded to an abstract academic definition here. For practical purposes, correct means whatever the person using it deems to be correct.

> It can't do that. "My requirements" wasn't part of the training set.

Neither are mine, the art of building these models is that they are generalisable enough that they can tackle tasks that aren't in their dataset. They have proven, at least for some classes of tasks, they can do exactly that.

godelski9mo ago

  > to an abstract academic definition here

Besides the fact that your statement is self contradicting, there is actually a solid definition [0]. You should click the link on specification too. Or better yet, go talk to one of those guys that did their PhD in programming languages.

  > They have proven

Have they?

Or did you just assume?

Yeah, I know they got good scores on those benchmarks but did you look at the benchmarks? Look at the question and look what is required to pass it. Then take a moment and think. For the love of God, take a moment and think about how you can pass those tests. Don't just take a pass at face value and move on. If you do, well I got a bridge to sell you.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correctness_(computer_science)

1 more reply

godelski9mo ago

Is your grandma qualified to determine what is good code?

  > If the model can write code that passes tests

You think tests make code good? Oh my sweet summer child. TDD has been tried many times and each time it failed worse than the last.

pydry9mo ago

Good to know something i've been doing for 10 years consistently could never work.

godelski9mo ago

It's okay, lots of people's code is always buggy. I know people that suck at coding and have been doing it for 50 years. It's not uncommon

I'm not saying don't make tests. But I am saying you're not omniscient. Until you are, your tests are going to be incomplete. They are helpful guides, but they should not drive development. If you really think you can test for every bug then I suggest you apply to be Secretary for health.

https://hackernoon.com/test-driven-development-is-fundamenta...

https://geometrian.com/projects/blog/test_driven_development...

3 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

otabdeveloper49mo ago

> What's the difference between a "human interpretation of a good program" and a "good program" when we (humans) are the ones using it?

Correctness.

> and meets my requirements

It can't do that. "My requirements" wasn't part of the training set.

mindwokOP9mo ago

"Correctness" in what sense? It sounds like it's being expanded to an abstract academic definition here. For practical purposes, correct means whatever the person using it deems to be correct.

> It can't do that. "My requirements" wasn't part of the training set.

godelski9mo ago

  > to an abstract academic definition here

  > They have proven

Have they?

Or did you just assume?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correctness_(computer_science)

1 more reply

godelski9mo ago

Is your grandma qualified to determine what is good code?

  > If the model can write code that passes tests

You think tests make code good? Oh my sweet summer child. TDD has been tried many times and each time it failed worse than the last.

pydry9mo ago

Good to know something i've been doing for 10 years consistently could never work.

godelski9mo ago

It's okay, lots of people's code is always buggy. I know people that suck at coding and have been doing it for 50 years. It's not uncommon

https://hackernoon.com/test-driven-development-is-fundamenta...

https://geometrian.com/projects/blog/test_driven_development...

3 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse